« As "Morning Joe" misses the point on torture | Joy-Ann Reid's Blog | On Torture: no bookings for Levin »
The CNN torture echo chamber
Has CNN adopted an editorial policy of ignoring altogether, the finding reported last week by McClatchy, that the serial torture of "high value detainees" Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah was done not to prevent another terrorist attack, but rather to try and extract false confessions that would tie Saddam Hussain to 9/11?
John King this morning (Sunday) had on Diane Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and the treacherous Mr. Lieberman to discuss, among other things, the release of the torture memos. Lieberman and Graham were allowed, unimpeded by King, to repeat the meme that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) was used, in Graham's words, "not to commit a crime against individual people, but to save us all from another attack."
At that point, King might have interjected that a senior U.S. inteligence official and a former Army psychiatrist have stated that the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq was central to the torture program (a desire that was shared by Mr. Lieberman for many years, by the way...) and asked his guests for comment.
He interjected no such thing. In fact, I don't recall hearing the McClatchy story repeated on CNN in any daypart since the news broke last week. Has anyone else noticed what seems like an editorial decision to stick to the official (Bush-Cheney) narrative about torture being necessary to prevent another attack? Perhaps CNN simply doesn't believe McClatchy's sources, or maybe they don't want to open up this line of inquiry against the prior administration for reasons unknown.
(Not that NBC has been exactly aggressive, other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow's shows about making this point, either, but CNN seems to be particularly determined to hew to the Cheney line.)
Meanwhile, what will Howie Kurtz do...?
John King this morning (Sunday) had on Diane Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and the treacherous Mr. Lieberman to discuss, among other things, the release of the torture memos. Lieberman and Graham were allowed, unimpeded by King, to repeat the meme that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) was used, in Graham's words, "not to commit a crime against individual people, but to save us all from another attack."
At that point, King might have interjected that a senior U.S. inteligence official and a former Army psychiatrist have stated that the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq was central to the torture program (a desire that was shared by Mr. Lieberman for many years, by the way...) and asked his guests for comment.
He interjected no such thing. In fact, I don't recall hearing the McClatchy story repeated on CNN in any daypart since the news broke last week. Has anyone else noticed what seems like an editorial decision to stick to the official (Bush-Cheney) narrative about torture being necessary to prevent another attack? Perhaps CNN simply doesn't believe McClatchy's sources, or maybe they don't want to open up this line of inquiry against the prior administration for reasons unknown.
(Not that NBC has been exactly aggressive, other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow's shows about making this point, either, but CNN seems to be particularly determined to hew to the Cheney line.)
Meanwhile, what will Howie Kurtz do...?
Advertisement
















Well, John Meacham thinks the torture issue is a stylistic point and we must find a moderate way of looking back but great war Presidents create great sins so what the hell how could Bush be a great war President if he wasn't suspending habeous corpus or interning brown people? Doris Kearns can't figure out why we are wasting our time on torture when we could be focused on Obama's great speech on pay-go.
Well, there you go.
April 26, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm finding it harder and harder to watch the Sunday chat shows.
David Gregory with King Abdullah of Jordan, George Steph with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran
Howie Kurtz with Perez Hilton!
Bob Schieffer, whom I normally can watch...
John King... I don't know how you could bear to watch...
Sigh...
(rec'd by the way!)
April 26, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't watch, so I'm hanging out here! That way I get a synopsis of what the idiots are saying w/o having to go through the mental torture myself!
April 26, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too have given up watching CNN for real political commentary or analysis or even political news beyond the basics, for all they do not say and do not ask. They look the other way from the real questions and bury us in repeated trivia. After corporate influence in Washington corrupting our policies, our fourth estate that seems to no longer function in that capacity is cause for concern. Thank God we have the internet.
April 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
John King is a tool. That's why he was picked to interview Bush so many times -- has had his spine surgically removed.
CNN and other big networks are just godawful. What irks me is their willful ignorance on these issues: They bring on a right-leaning cast of clowns to spout misinformation, and obvious logical flaws and false information are never pointed out.
The people have now repeatedly rejected the GOP at the polls, but it seems we are subjected to an overwhelmingly right-leaning punditry -- their guest list is skewing 60-70% conservative ("balanced" of course, not with liberal pundits, but with neutral journalists) --and their sympathizers (Wofl, King, Tapper).
How do we vote these bums out?
April 26, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. Watching CNN becomes an exercise is yelling arguments at the TV that somebody should be making but isn't!
April 26, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Watching John King is not good for my blood pressure.
King's political perspectives are strongly influenced by Conservative ideology which renders any expectation of neutrality unrealistic.
He only invites guests who reinforce right-wing talking points. Democrats and 'neutral or non-partisans" appearing on his show merely provide a false impression of journalistic objectivity.
On the other hand, Fareed Zakiria's program is usually informative and worth watching.
April 27, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on Fareed. Love his show.
April 27, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Zakaria's show reveals much about what is wrong with most other TV news programming. Zakaria tries to dig down to the root of an issue. Perhaps, that's because of his PhD education experience, perhaps not. He might not actually get to the root, but its clear he's attempting to. Most other news programming seems interested only in just the opposite, they seek to SUSTAIN some controversial issue or story, not to get to the root.
April 27, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink